As long as no one is affected by those views in anyway then yes, I'd agree.
I would suggest however this is little more than a thought exercise, it would be almost impossible to hold such views and have them not impact society.
Unless you went a lived in a cave.

"-almost impossible to hold such views and have them not impact society..." What, are their brains sending out dangerous society-radiation or something?

...Correct, all of these things could have been done at the discretion of the organisers, and such actions are not required by law.
The reality is that such sanctions are very rarely taken, and absolutely never against anyone with any degree of power or influence.
It is this latter point in particular that would require force of law to correct which I what I'd propose.
Although seeing as senior (male) academics frequently get away with things that actually ARE crimes (such as the sexual assault of their students) even this is a little optimistic TBH...

Make a complaint against those who held the convention for failure to maintain appropriate decorum.

...How about if I said I was going to do it in 12 years but after those 12 years I only made about a third of the required progress.
A waste of effort? Do you think I'd have galvanised enough support to achieve as much as I had if I'd initially said it was going to take 100 years?
As I said, I don't have a problem with this particular political trick. . . . . you might call it dishonest or disingenuous and I suppose it is, but hey if its the only way to get us to Mars!
This is partially a problem of short term governments being incompatible with long term goals, hence politicians over promise what they can deliver in the time frame they have.

So, intentionally submitting a false deadline that is terribly inadequate is appropriate because it would result in increased gains compared to the result if a later deadline was given?

There's this thing called "Basic Project Management." The idea being that you have one big Day 0 that is broken up by smaller, internal, deadlines for particular elements of the project. That way, when Day 0 finally comes, one can be sure that one has done their best to manage the project so that it meets the stated deadline.

On the first day of the project, a bunch of people are going to get together and say "This project can't be done in 12 years." Then, they're going to go to whoever gave them that deadline and prove to them why its unrealistic. That deadline would survive the amount of time it takes the people at that meeting to finish one cup of Executive Office Grade complimentary coffee... or cappuccino or whatever the director's office is serving up.

And, of course, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez gave the same reason that you did: "They'd make more progress, more quickly, if they had such a short deadline..." <paraphrased> Do you know what that means?

It means she has never had any experience dealing with long-term projects or managing long-term or large projects... It means, she pulled one of those "great ideas" she had out of her butt and thought it was so totally awesome that it was deserving of a major splash in an interview because she didn't have the experience, knowledge, or practical intelligence to understand it could never pass muster. Even if a bunch of practically brain-dead Congresspersons went along with it, the project Director would be standing before Congress the next day, explaining to those squabbling kindergartners that they won't be able to get want they want due to reality intruding.

Her idea that includes that ludicrous deadline of 12 years to convert the US out of fossil-fuel use is worthless. It has no worth because it would never even get started since smarter people would have to be hired to actually accomplish the project.. Then again, the only ones that would agree to work on such a project either intend to commit fraud or are idiots, so maybe it would live on the books for awhile.

Indeed, but I would propose that whilst we are both judging the merit of her ideas, you are also judging her ability to implement them.
At this stage I think the former is fine (although we clearly disagree) but the latter is unfair.

I know when someone makes a suggestion that indicates they don't know what they're talking about. And, if they don't know what they're talking about, they're going to have to learn on their feet if they try to implement it. So, I will say that the suggestions I have heard don't have any merit on their face, because the proposed mechanisms suggested to implement those suggestions are forbidden by natural law (or what passes for it). But, I will withhold judgement on what her performance may be in the future, since she's already elected. She could be a good "Poster Child" for the Democrats and they might try to build her up a bit. Congresspersons might add her name to Bills as a co-sponsor, giving her some airtime. She might get some internal support, getting fed some nice topics and headlines to help build her image, etc. She is, after all, still young and could be built into whatever they think they want. Of course, she could rebel. If that happened, she'd be "cast out." No funding, someone would run against her, a bunch of negative press, etc..

...What motivation does Candidate A have to cater to the Lemon people? Why should they give one single hoot about the Grapefruit people? (2%! Pah! Irrelevant!)
This is how FPTP works, winner takes all, everyone else gets nowt.

Well, for one, the candidate would probably not be re-elected with that sort of significant difference. They'd also be subject to a lot of bad press and constant picketing, complaining, endless motions, etc.. that would make their job very difficult, since other lawmakers would want to avoid the bad press.

But, we also have "Rights" that are to help prevent the Minority from being tyrannized by the Majority. There's a host of laws that could come into play to prevent people from having things forced upon them or being denied certain Rights. I'd imagine the Supreme Court would get involved.

But, the obvious fact is that they are elected as a Representative of ALL of their constituents, not just those who voted for them. If injustice occurs, that's not exactly something that's predictable. Most lawmakers hate making rules that their voters know will inconvenience them or make their lives harder... The keyword being "know." They're quite happy to make crappy legislation that is so complex that people don't realize they're getting screwed. And, it's almost always in favor of a tiny number of influential people... So, maybe it's a conspiracy by the Grapefruit lovers who just happen to own all the orange groves?

Its not bad, it covers the concept at a very broad level.
To be more specific about my problem with it, its the idea of treating all viewpoints as if they have equal merit. The idea of eternal compromise.
Oh the idea all sounds well and good enough until it starts hitting the extremes, I will not compromise with a racist. I will not meet them in the middle by acknowledging that "Perhaps they have a point about immigration".
Or as I already touched on the idea that you can somehow debate away extremist views. . . . . you can't. This is not how you deal with them, in attempting it you only legitimises them.
The idea has similar issues (although not as stark) when operating outside the extremes as well, a stupid idea with extremely limited merit is never worth "compromising" over.

Well, you're not quite a "Centrist." You seem to have a set of principles that you feel are inviolate, that's all. Perhaps you're a little fuzzy on how those principles should be protected?

In terms of economic policy, it manifests in the idea that free market economics will somehow magically poop out a fair and equal society if we manage it just so with a relatively light touch.
This idea is (and I'm not going to mince my words here) complete and utter f***ing bull****.

How much are the "markets" responsible for an "equal society?" Do the members of that society have any responsibility? The idea isn't that the market should provide anything more than the most fertile ground for an individual's success. BUT, the government also has some responsibility to provide for a stable, healthy, society by instituting laws and regulations that foster those things. One of those things is to see that factors outside of the individual's control do not unduly or unfairly hinder this. That doesn't always work, granted. Some would say that given certain population sizes, it won't ever truly work - Someone is always going to be on the bottom, even when their yacht is only 20' long and their neighbor's is 40'.

AFAIK, there is no unrestricted free-market economy in existence, largely because of the regulations necessary to provide protections and "equal opportunity" for individuals to see that all are afforded equal opportunity of access.

Defining what you believe is hard enough. Figuring out if someone else's definition adequately represents your own belief is even more difficult.

I'm glad you feel my pain brother!

Well, we all don't share the same brain so we're bound to have differences in thought. There won't be any ideals matched between your thoughts and anything else. The best you can hope to achieve is agreeing with something that is "close enough" to achieve the points that have the most meaning to you. And, if you ever truly settle on one of those things that has a "good enough" match for you to be forever happy in your choice, you'll be the first...

- if you mean the last time it was botched by the Republicans..
- now why would people not remember that..??

- this stupid shutdown is also a constant reminder of the disdain shown to the general public, by the Republicans..
- why would people not remember that, also..??

- in the UK, the conservatives needlessly IMPOSED austerity on the people
- the people won't forget that in a hurry, either..

- here's a question for ya'
- what exactly are these so-called "conservatives" actually conserving..??
- they should change their name to the Preservatives..

Obamacare did not fail because of Republicans. Obama got everything he wanted and it still sucked for the people paying for it. This is what you don't get. Every social policy you want involves someone paying for it.

Our government is shut down because part of our Congress is so determined to see President Trump fail they stopped caring about the security of the entire country.

Conservatism is an acceptance of the beliefs held by the founders of America. All men are created equal. We hold natural rights. We recognize individual liberty as our most important value. If you want to really get America this is where you start. Doesn't matter how much good you think you could do even if the socialist and authoritarian views you share had ever worked before. You would at least know why some of us are so resistant to them. You would understand when I say that what you want to do with government will not ever be inflicted on me while I am still breathing.

Obamacare did not fail because of Republicans. Obama got everything he wanted and it still sucked for the people paying for it. This is what you don't get. Every social policy you want involves someone paying for it.

It was a complete crapshow... Nobody "knew" what was in it to begin with. It was the "last gasp" pushed through to demonstrate that the Democratic Party could "do something."

Our government is shut down because part of our Congress is so determined to see President Trump fail they stopped caring about the security of the entire country.

This is lolworthy, so I shall "lol." No offense intended. <ahem>

"lol"

With that out of the way, the fact is that Trump wants a "WALL" and has painted himself into a corner by everything he has said the past few weeks because he FAILED to leverage the last already-agreed-upon bipartisan agreement which passed, giving him 1.6 billion dollars. He had already agree to it, it was ready to be signed, he reneged... Why?

Because he's an idiot, that's why.

He SHOULD have been on this thing the whole time, if it's as important as he says it is. But, it's not, is it? One can certainly say that in-between golf-outings, Trump didn't try to work with Congress to achieve this all-important-goal-of-saving-the-universe-from-the-Mexican-menace, did he? He had a majority in both the House and the Senate and he did... Nothing.

Nada.

Republicans controlled the House and Senate and Trump did nothing to leverage that power to get his darn wall, did he? This wall, that is so very important to protect the "security" of the Nation.

HE. DID. NOTHING.

So, when you get ready to vote again, remember that. Remember that this "Deal Maker" did squat to actually "make a deal" and all he had to do at that time was just show up! That's it! All he had to do at the most would have been to have a nice photo-op session sitting down with Congressional Leaders an getting an appropriation for this critical "WALL" he wants.

He. DID. NOTHING.

So, here we are, with a President playing catch-up by reneging on the deal that he had agreed to, probably without even knowing wtf it was, and then backing out on it at the last minute and demanding an ever-increasing amount of money for his WALL. Now that he doesn't have the leverage he had, he's painted himself into a corner.

Everyone knows what the real problem is, but nobody wants to expose it.

All that the Republicans will say is "NATIONAL SECURITY ZOMGZ IF WE DON'T DO THIS "THEY" WILL RAPE YOUR GRANDMA!!!"

Democrats? All they will say is "No" and "We don't think that a wall is the only thing that should be addressed, here."

The reality is:

Trump wants a wall because he wants to demonstrate he did something. All the best Pharaohs, Kings, and Caeasar's had their monuments, so Trump wants his. But, now Trump is throwing a tantrum over this after his being-asleep-at-the-wheel and missing his best opportunity to get it. Suddenly, he has some people that don't want to give him what he wants... and he doesn't know what to do about it. (ie: He doesn't know "politics.") That means that 800,000 people won't be getting a paycheck on Friday and a lot of government services are shutting down.

You know what the Dems want? They don't want Trump to have his WALL, that's what they want. And, now they're in a position to do just that. A position handed to them on a silver-platter because Trump was asleep at his desk or on the golf course when someone suggested he might have to actually do some work.

On the Wall: Here's the truth - You do not build a defensive wall that does not have eyeballs on it. Never. Never do you do such a dumb thing. Why? Because an un-watched wall is not a barrier to human beings. It never has been and never, ever, will be. There is no wall in existence that has ever served as a barrier to human beings if it didn't have human eyeballs watching it to be sure human beings weren't pushing it down, climbing over it, or digging under it... Zero. They don't exist and never have existed. Much, much, more would be needed to secure the wall. And, note "secure the wall." You actually have to protect the wall, itself, and its intent with real, live, people.

It's also worth noting that nobody has talked about the environmental impacts of this wall. There are plenty of species that don't recognize borders and they will be effected if anyone actually builds a "WALL" or even the miniature, small-handed, "metal slat" wall Trump is trying to sell now.

Trump's solution is simple - It's the solution of the otherwise impotent. He's going to drop a nuclear-bomb on it, giving himself as much "dictatorial" power as possible in order to effect a solution that has to do with a cost that's probably less than what it costs to keep him in Big Macs for a year... ALL he had to do was work with a favorable Congress, when he had it, to get this done and he didn't do a darn thing. This is a "leader?" It's evidence of an dumb@$$, is what it is.

And we are suffering from his incompetence right now. Here it is, right now, people are suffering and he's just oh-so-very-happy to say he'll keep this up for years if he wants...

Years?

Honestly, do you support this? You support the man who did this? The guy who had a deal that had already been negotiated and had given him 1.6 billion, yet he reneged on it and demanded 4 billion, then changed to over 5 billion in a matter of a couple of days? This guy? He's incompetent, at best.

Conservatism is an acceptance of the beliefs held by the founders of America. All men are created equal. We hold natural rights. We recognize individual liberty as our most important value. If you want to really get America this is where you start. Doesn't matter how much good you think you could do even if the socialist and authoritarian views you share had ever worked before. You would at least know why some of us are so resistant to them. You would understand when I say that what you want to do with government will not ever be inflicted on me while I am still breathing.

Family-centric values, individual liberty, the right of self-determination, the protection and assurance of human rights necessary to achieve self-determination, the right to own property, the right for equitable wages for work, the right to empower governance of one's choice (vote), etc..

These days, "Conservatism" has taken on a taint that is a bit more extreme than what our "traditional values" would dictate.

- if you mean the last time it was botched by the Republicans..
- now why would people not remember that..??

- this stupid shutdown is also a constant reminder of the disdain shown to the general public, by the Republicans..
- why would people not remember that, also..??

- in the UK, the conservatives needlessly IMPOSED austerity on the people
- the people won't forget that in a hurry, either..

- here's a question for ya'
- what exactly are these so-called "conservatives" actually conserving..??
- they should change their name to the Preservatives..

Obamacare did not fail because of Republicans. Obama got everything he wanted and it still sucked for the people paying for it. This is what you don't get. Every social policy you want involves someone paying for it.

Our government is shut down because part of our Congress is so determined to see President Trump fail they stopped caring about the security of the entire country.

Conservatism is an acceptance of the beliefs held by the founders of America. All men are created equal. We hold natural rights. We recognize individual liberty as our most important value. If you want to really get America this is where you start. Doesn't matter how much good you think you could do even if the socialist and authoritarian views you share had ever worked before. You would at least know why some of us are so resistant to them. You would understand when I say that what you want to do with government will not ever be inflicted on me while I am still breathing.

- a sort of "screw-you-Jack-I'm-alright" approach to life..
- not exactly endearing..

- the whole universe is running in BETA mode - we're working on it.. beep..!!

What, are their brains sending out dangerous society-radiation or something?

Kinda.
If they live in society their views will influence it, simple as that.
They will participate in literally 100's of social interactions daily and will routinely be given opportunities to discriminate based on their racism, and even with the best possibly behaviour, they will.

Make a complaint against those who held the convention for failure to maintain appropriate decorum.

Again, without legal force they could (would and do) just ignore it.

It means she has never had any experience dealing with long-term projects or managing long-term or large projects... I

No, it means shes a politician and is behaving like one.
Is it a good system, no. . . . is it one of the only ways of setting long term goals in short term parliaments, yes . . . . . does it work? Kinda, not very well sadly . . . largely for the reasons you describe.

I know when someone makes a suggestion that indicates they don't know what they're talking about. And, if they don't know what they're talking about, they're going to have to learn on their feet if they try to implement it. So, I will say that the suggestions I have heard don't have any merit on their face, because the proposed mechanisms suggested to implement those suggestions are forbidden by natural law (or what passes for it).

I'd suggest she does "know what shes talking about" in regard to both economics and climate science.
I know both from my own knowledge and (far more importantly) this because her ideas are supported by large numbers of experts within both fields (especially the latter).
I don't quite know what you mean by "natural law" but I think you might mean "How capitalist economics traditionally works", and the fact the economic theories she is talking about fly in the face of the way the system currently operates is the ENTIRE GODDAMN POINT!
There can be no debate that the USA represents a massively unequal society.
There can equally be no debate that this situation is the (to use your words) "natural" result of the economic system under which the US operates.
If you dislike the former you simply have no choice but to either reject or heavily modify the latter . . . . more on this later.

You can dismiss this as "impossible" or "unnatural" if you like, that is your opinion and your prerogative, but this does NOT make it invalid.

Well, for one, the candidate would probably not be re-elected with that sort of significant difference.

Why not? The majority would be very happy with their oranges. . . . why wouldn't they vote for the person again?

But, we also have "Rights" that are to help prevent the Minority from being tyrannized by the Majority.

Those protections only act at the very highest level, matters of basic human rights and the like. They too are also not inviolable (although admittedly far better protected than anything at a district level that we are discussing), you only have to look at how Trump, with his majority support in all branches of government, attempted to erode those rights in relation to women. He may yet succeed.

But, the obvious fact is that they are elected as a Representative of ALL of their constituents, not just those who voted for them.

Agreed, the point is that your electoral law does not reflect that ideal . . . . at all.
If you require other law in order to try and correct this then this a) proves my point and b) is a rather indirect and imperfect way of doing so, not to mention incredibly venerable to corruption which is a point I think you made.

Perhaps you're a little fuzzy on how those principles should be protected?

Indeed, I haven't fully worked out an alternative to centrism than steers well clear of tyranny, the two being (IMO) kinda opposite ends of the same scale.

The idea isn't that the market should provide anything more than the most fertile ground for an individual's success. BUT, the government also has some responsibility to provide for a stable, healthy, society by instituting laws and regulations that foster those things. One of those things is to see that factors outside of the individual's control do not unduly or unfairly hinder this. That doesn't always work, granted. Some would say that given certain population sizes, it won't ever truly work - Someone is always going to be on the bottom, even when their yacht is only 20' long and their neighbor's is 40'.
AFAIK, there is no unrestricted free-market economy in existence, largely because of the regulations necessary to provide protections and "equal opportunity" for individuals to see that all are afforded equal opportunity of access.

Ok, you largely have the right of it here but are making basically the same mistake as the Center Leftists.
It is their view that the government do what you suggest, GUIDE the market via regulation and legislation, but almost never to the point where any actual CONTROL is exerted. Never to the point where the goals of capitalism are actually limited or challenged. That is the point of compromise in the Center between Left and Right and it is WAAAAAAY too far to the Right. For more details google "Neoliberal economics".
If you goal is to create a fair an equal society that benefits all then such control and limitation is REQUIRED, quite simply because a free market capitalist system "naturally" results in the EXACT opposite.

I am not going to write out an entire economics 101 here to cover all the exceptions and subtleties I will just highlight the key point.
The goal of capitalism is in the name, to accumulate as much capital as possible. Most (near all) capital is based upon labour and there is only so much (not very) capital that you can achieve via your own labour.
In order to achieve this you therefore MUST leverage other peoples labour and you MUST compensate them unfairly for it otherwise there would be no excess for you take.
This "excess capital" is the literal definition of the term "Profit", but it can also legitimately be called something else: "Theft". . . . and at it's most extreme this concept is called: "Slavery"
The situation in which most people find themselves is called "wage slavery" by (admittedly lefty) economists.

It is a system literally and fundamentally based upon the exploitation of others, and if you wish to build a fair and equal society out of such a thing you will need some VERY big sticks with which to control it.
One such stick is the concept of "soaking the rich". Feel free to suggest another mechanism by which the capital stolen from the masses might be returned to them?

"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

I've gave the wall some thought and I just cannot come up with a way that it would work, I can always come up with a way to either go over, under or through it, a total waste of money that only an idiot would think it was a good idea. So who here thinks it's a good idea.

So Trumps shutdown continues and it looks like he is going to hold the record for the longest ever US Government shutdown. So I was thinking what do you think the odds are that at some point in the near future, Trump will use this in a speech that will go something like, I am the greatest President of all time, I do everything better than anyone else, I even shut the government down better than anyone else. I honestly think that he thinks that holding the record for the longest shutdown, will be something to be proud of. After all the man is a total incompetent fool and only a total incompetent fool would think like that, so lets wait and see if I get it right or not.

I'm not saying he is a Russian asset, I'm saying he sat on his asset when he was supposed to be confronting Putin.
He will not be re-elected. Without a wall, he will only be remembered as a small cartoon figure who briefly inflamed and amused the rabble.

As long as no one is affected by those views in anyway then yes, I'd agree.
I would suggest however this is little more than a thought exercise, it would be almost impossible to hold such views and have them not impact society.
Unless you went a lived in a cave.

And it's impossible because you believe it impossible, and that belief is as much harmful and toxic and whatever bigotry idea you're crusading again.

Everyone has the right to be respected, everyone has the right to be accepted, I have no problem with those entitlement. But modern activism doesn't stop at that, it also wants to force everyone "to be liked" as well.

Everyone has the right to be respected, everyone has the right to be accepted, I have no problem with those entitlement. But modern activism doesn't stop at that, it also wants to force everyone "to be liked" as well.

Uggggg, more centrist rubbish. "Everyone has a right to be respected". Of course they bloody don't.
Respect is earned, as is acceptance.
What can also be earned is disrespect and rejection.
Or to put it another way being told to shut up and f*** off.

"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

Uggggg, more centrist rubbish. "Everyone has a right to be respected". Of course they bloody don't.

Actually, if you consider that is rubbish, then the correct saying would be "left wing rubbish". Those statements are like their battle-cry for for just about any equality issue. The only problem is their consistency, because it would only apply to people who share their same idea. The "every" in "everyone" is often just one big fat hypocrisy.

Respect is earned, as is acceptance.

While THIS is actually what the centrist believe. So if you are true to your word, I think you should give the centrists more due respect.

Your condescension in referring to me as kid is noted and mocked. Your attitude that the outcome in Korea you were hysterical about that didn't happen but could have happened and justifies hysteria is noted and mocked. Your opinion on net neutrality differs from mine but I respect your right to have it. Your investments have no bearing on my politics and at most reflect poor judgement on your part. Your decision not to illegally immigrate to my country is wise.

Carry on.

A similar hysteria erupted here and across the liberal web when Trump announced removing US troops from Syria (where they have no legal right to be)
Time will tell in Syria as in the Korean peninsula whether peace will be possible; but in both cases Trump is right to step back and allow the local parties resolve their issues

About Bolton:
A core principle of Neocon policy in the Middle East is maintaining instability. Neocon ideology requires creating and maintaining instability in regions where US dominance is resisted.
Putin has described it as the Empire of Chaos. The Neocon moment is passing into infamy (I hope).

Actually, if you consider that is rubbish, then the correct saying would be "left wing rubbish".

Nope, although I completely understand why you think so.
It is indeed the language you often hear from left wing parties. . . . and this is because those parties are desperately chasing the centre.
I have no time for it and it's the primary reason why I think the Democrats in particular are a trash fire. . . . Hilary Clinton being the crowning achievement of their centrism.
The dead certainty who somehow managed to lose to Donald sodding Trump. [slow clap]
Turns out left wing voters, don't much like it when "their" party starts trying to win right wing votes. . . . . who'd bloody thunk it, eh?

While THIS is actually what the centrist believe. So if you are true to your word, I think you should give the centrists more due respect.

No, it isn't. Its a rather non-partisan statement that you'll find represented at both ends of the political spectrum, whereas in the middle you'll find little but a desire for "compromise".
It is from that desire that this "All opinions are equally valid and must be respected" crap comes from.

So Trumps shutdown continues and it looks like he is going to hold the record for the longest ever US Government shutdown.

If it goes over a second paycheck the s*** will really hit the fan.
Many state employees might be just about financially secure enough to survive a month without pay, but I'd imagine two months would put most of them into serious financial trouble.

"Shoot for the Moon. If you miss, you'll end up co-orbiting the Sun alongside Earth, living out your days alone in the void within sight of the lush, welcoming home you left behind." - XKCD

why are democrats against securing the american border ? either through a fence or a wall, doesnt matter ... they are talking about symbolic value of a possible wall while people are dying of drug overdoses, cartel wars and much more ... there are really NO negative impacts to the US at all ... (besides some animal populations could be separated from each other)

the key question is:
are democrats trying to protect the status quo which means illegal immigrants can just walk across the border, just because democrats dont want to loose any latino votes ? or are democrats ALL OF THE SUDDEN concerned about money wasting ... but if that would be the case, they never would have bailed-out the banks and so on ... so what is it ?

Nope, although I completely understand why you think so.
It is indeed the language you often hear from left wing parties. . . . and this is because those parties are desperately chasing the centre.

I wish ...

I have no time for it and it's the primary reason why I think the Democrats in particular are a trash fire. . . . Hilary Clinton being the crowning achievement of their centrism.
The dead certainty who somehow managed to lose to Donald sodding Trump. [slow clap]
Turns out left wing voters, don't much like it when "their" party starts trying to win right wing votes. . . . . who'd bloody thunk it, eh?

Should I remind you that Democrat has been consistently lost pretty much every single congressional election under Obama? Why do you think the Tea Party and the Freedom caucus rise to power? Because the Democrat has been chasing the center? HA. People often ask why does a pendulum swing so hard onto one side and come up with some ego inducing reasons to satisfy themselves at only that moment, while the most simple and true answer only demands one to look at where the pendulum was before: the only reason the pendulum swing so far to the right at this moment simply because it had swung that far or even further to the left in the previous cycle. Going for the center? That's a joke, the center is never a goal in the politic, it's merely a place people uncomfortable got dragged back on on the way to the other side after trying to go as far as possible on the current side. In fact, people like you often use the center as a dumping ground for your irresponsibility. Do you know what you just said is also what the right had said, just changing a few word? And that is "we couldn't beat the left because we're not far enough to the right!". After all, it's much easier for both side to blame the middle:

- It absolves them the responsibility that it is their action that prompts the backlash they suffered.
- It gives them excuse to put their skew agenda even further next time.

Well, I often said the center is a ****** place to be, didn't I ?

Good news for you though, now that Trump got elected and the next two years continue the same, the pendulum will conserve enough momentum on the right for a full swing back to the left. There will be of course a brief respite when it momentally visit the middle, but saying it's a goal for either side just show a lack of political awareness. But the bad news? For as long as politic functions like a pendulum, it will never be possible for any one side to keep the hand permanently on one side or swinging in one direction. In fact, the more gratification and satisfaction one may get in one period will most likely be matched by an equal scale of retribution when the next swing comes around. This is not an opinion, but a historical fact.

Yet somehow ... the ideal of being centralism is considered to be desirable and sacred trait to have in politic - serving everyone and not just your constitution and all that. So perhaps your lack of political awareness is because you are fooled by all the lip service paid in tribute to centralism. Just like Republican politicians tend to pay a lot of tribute to Reagan, so much that if you're naive enough you would think they all aspire to be like him. But anyone with a quarter of a brain would find it cringe when the like of Cruz praising Reagan.

No, it isn't. Its a rather non-partisan statement that you'll find represented at both ends of the political spectrum, whereas in the middle you'll find little but a desire for "compromise".
It is from that desire that this "All opinions are equally valid and must be respected" crap comes from.

Should I add this into the list of what you believe Centrist are? Here is a list of trait of what Centrist are according to you and some other in this thread for the last 2 years (but I think most of it came from you).
- Centrist means being indecisive.
- Centrist means having no opinion.
- Centrist just mean you lack spite to fight for anything.
- Centrist only have a desire for "compromise".

Those are what I remember from top of my head. At the very least, it seems I'm recognized as a centrist here by most people from both side of the argument, thus it's always amusing whenever one of these pop up and you see others (often individual who are clearly bias, with some even admit it themselves) claim they understand and know who you are better then yourself.

It'll just leave you with one relevant statement for this contest: in the view of a centrist there is no left leaning idea or right leaning idea. It doesn't matter if it come from the left, or the right, or a compromise in between, to us there is only good idea and bad idea. Think about being centrist as being to look at matter without preform judgement - I had seen you often admit yourself as carrying political bias - so the question is are you capable of doing what a centrist can do? And if you can not, then what makes you think you understand what it takes to be a centrist?

Last edited by Mightysword on Sat, 12. Jan 19, 02:06, edited 1 time in total.